Habeeb Zaleena d/o Pallivilakam Kader Habeeb Mohamed v Public Prosecutor
[2026] SGHC 99 · HC/MA 9175/2025/01 · cites 17 cases · cited by 2 cases
Step 1: What happened
On the morning of 30 September 2020 Ms Habeeb Zaleena d/o Pallivilakam Kader Habeeb Mohamed was driving along Woodlands Road and made a discretionary right turn at the junction with Kranji Expressway. She turned swiftly without slowing or stopping in the turning pocket to check for oncoming traffic, and hit a 47-year-old dispatch rider who was going straight with the green light and was within her field of vision. He was thrown onto the pavement, his motorcycle struck a waiting lorry, and his storage box was flung towards the junction island, narrowly missing a pedestrian on a motorised bicycle. He suffered fractures to both legs and a degloving injury to the right foot, spent 119 days in hospital with multiple surgeries, was left with a permanent foot injury needing modified footwear, and had more than eight months of further leave.
She pleaded guilty to driving without reasonable consideration under s 65(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, punishable under s 65(3)(a). A District Judge applied the framework in Chen Song v Public Prosecutor [2025] 3 SLR 509, found greater harm and lower culpability, and sentenced her to 11 weeks' imprisonment and a five-year disqualification. She appealed in Magistrate's Appeal No 9175 of 2025/01, seeking a fine.
Step 2: What the court had to decide
- Whether the District Judge erred in classifying the harm as greater harm under the Chen Song framework.
- Whether the culpability was correctly placed at the upper end of lower culpability, including the relevance of her eye condition.
- Whether mitigating factors, the 2025 amendments to the Road Traffic Act and comparable precedents were properly considered.
Step 3: How the court reasoned
On harm, all three primary factors were present. The degree of permanence asks only whether the injury itself is permanent, and the statement of facts said it was. The 119 days in hospital and the further months of leave showed substantial impact on a dispatch rider unable to work; the judge added that the post-discharge leave, which the District Judge had not considered, was also relevant, and stressed that the harm assessment is holistic. Potential harm and property damage were also made out. The video footage was played without objection before she admitted the statement of facts, and the potential harm was apparent from the admitted facts in any case.
On culpability, the Highway Code and Traffic Police guidance require a driver turning right to wait in the turning pocket and give way. Her breach was best treated as flouting traffic rules rather than a high degree of carelessness, but either way only one culpability factor applied. Her eye condition was irrelevant because she had admitted not keeping a lookout and never said she looked but failed to see; following Anita Damu v Public Prosecutor [2020] 3 SLR 825, expert evidence cannot supply a missing fact. The accident reconstruction expert also strayed beyond his expertise, and his report was incomplete. Greater harm with lower culpability placed the case in Band 2, above the custodial threshold.
On mitigation, a clean record is neutral, and her long teaching career deserved only modest weight given Parliament's emphasis on deterrence. The reduction from a starting point of 6 to 8 months to 16 weeks before the 30% plea discount was, if anything, generous, though the Prosecution had not appealed. The 2025 amendments, effective 12 June 2025, did not apply retrospectively to a 2020 offence, and unreported or pre-Chen Song precedents carried little weight.
“The point, simply, is that an expert’s opinion is only as good as the factual basis on which it rests, and where that factual basis has not been established through admissible evidence, the expert opinion carries no weight and is effectively irrelevant.”
[2026] SGHC 99 at [51]
Step 4: The order
Kannan Ramesh JAD dismissed the appeal on 20 March 2026 and later gave full grounds. The sentence of 11 weeks' imprisonment with five years' disqualification from driving all classes of vehicles was not manifestly excessive and was upheld.
The order in the court's words
Appeal dismissed“I dismissed the appeal.”
Source: [2026] SGHC 99, High Court, decided 8 May 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 4–10 May 2026 →
Court record
Key facts
| Court | High Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Kannan Ramesh |
| Charges | Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Outcome | Appeal dismissed |
Source: [2026] SGHC 99, High Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Judge
- Kannan Ramesh Delivered the judgment
Parties
- Public Prosecutor Respondent
- Habeeb Zaleena d/o Pallivilakam Kader Habeeb Mohamed Appellant
Counsel
- Attorney-General's Chambers Firm
- Grace Chua Zhu Ern
- Mohamed Riasudeen
- Damodara Ong LLC Firm
- Isabel Ho Ci Xian
- S.M. Sukhmit Singh
Statutes cited
Cases cited (17)
- Agustinus Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 262
- [2017] SGHC 240
- [2020] SGHC 114
- [2025] SGDC 307
- [2005] 1 SLR(R) 611
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 684
- [2010] 1 SLR 707
- [2013] 4 SLR 1139
- [2014] 3 SLR 180
- [2015] 1 SLR 309
- [2017] 5 SLR 755
- [2019] 2 SLR 764
- [2020] 1 SLR 849
- [2020] 3 SLR 825
- [2024] 3 SLR 1730
- [2025] 3 SLR 509
Cited by (2)
- Public Prosecutor v Poovalai Thevar Kathiravannethi [2026] SGDC 337
- Tan Kai Yuan v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGHC 152
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
-
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the 12-month disqualification, holding that the retest requirement is not a relevant sentencing consideration.
High Court · 14 October 2026 · [2026] SGHC 213 -
The District Court sentenced the accused to six months' and one week's imprisonment for the s 35(2) offence, with no disqualification, and two weeks' imprisonment with a 12-month disqualification…
District Court · 2 September 2026 · [2026] SGDC 279 -
The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence of five days' imprisonment with one day's imprisonment.
High Court · 28 July 2026 · [2026] SGHC 152 -
The District Judge convicted the accused of trafficking.
District Court · 6 July 2026 · [2026] SGDC 220 -
The District Court convicted the accused after trial on the s 324 charge and, on his guilty pleas, on the other two charges, declined to call for corrective training or preventive detention reports,…
District Court · 30 June 2026 · [2026] SGDC 212 -
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentences of one week's imprisonment for each offence, running concurrently.
High Court · 22 May 2026 · [2026] SGHC 113
Referenced in
Sentencing outcomes for this offence
Read the full judgment
The judgment itself is on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 99)
This page sets out what the court decided, for learning. It is information, not legal advice. Disclaimer